I agree, it is a lot for that. Also, 3 5.25" open to the front? For that kind of money, I'd expect to see at least 4, and preferably 5 or 6. Simply because most don't use removable media doesn't mean that everyone is that way, and besides, there are some two and three bay displays which would severely limit this case in usefulness, were they to be a part of the build.Reply

Actually I prefer to have cases with as many 5.25" bays as possible, with adapters to transform them into 2.5"/3.5" bays and/or fan mounts. This is dead easy to do (especially for an expensive case, I've bought $40 cases with it) and it gives a much greater degree of flexibility in how you configure the case, plus it gives you as much space as possible for accessories designed to fit 5.25" bays such as fan-controllers, extra I/O panels, hot-swappable hard drive backplanes and so-on.

Don't get me wrong, for smaller cases you should absolutely ditch all things optical to conserve space, but if the case is going to be tower sized anyway, then I prefer flexibility above all. I mean, by the same logic, who needs 6-12 hard drive slots? Most gamers use two; an SSD and an HDD, probably with an external drive for backup since you can plug it into another machine if you need to (so you aren't stuck if your motherboard, CPU, PSU or even GPU, if you have no other video chip, fails on you).

For the price I'd also expect a much less ugly case, and a temperature controlled fan controller, rather than a basic manual one.Reply

Yuck! I'd prefer to not have any. The bays are the ugliest part of this case. I'd like to see a proper fan controller integrated into the case and the front being all intake, perhaps fit a 360 rad there. I have a USB CD drive that I pull out whenever I need it.Reply

Well, actually, from an engineering point of view, the whole "plastic vs metal" thing is just a silly debate. Plastic is a material that, depending on its composition and density, can have far superior characteristics that even the best of metals. Actually, it can be so much harder and lighter than metal that plastics are being added to both vehicle and personal armor to stop piercing projectiles. The front panel of the 760T is far more rigid than the flimsy metallic panels of cheap cases, for example. Plastic can easily be far more flexible, lighter and damage resistant than SECC steel or even aluminum, it depends on the quality of the plastic used.

As for the appearance/prestige goes, it is a subjective matter and I am with you on this one; I too would probably prefer a cold, minimalistic, all-metal case myself. That is not true for everyone though and it does not mean that the design of the 760T is bad.Reply

Yes, but what about the regular desktop case being a Faraday cage ? It's like that for a reason. And having magnetic clamps next to my hard disk drives is just as stupid. Whilst I may sound like I've got a tinfoil hat on, these are real concerns. Reply

NZXT has very successful cases, and they make the body out of plastic. The structure is metal, yes.In miniatures and models, plastic is considered superior.

It all depends on the quality of the plastic and acrylic. It's a nice switch from Corsair's heavy, full-metal Obsidian cases. Besides, I don't get what the fuss about having metal cases. If the computer falls, it's not like the case will save it. The components inside are going to exhibit damage either way.Reply

Why would you say that? It's a case that performs well, it's spacious and generally easy to work with (like most Corsair cases), and depending on your taste it looks nice. Are there less expensive cases? Of course there are! Do they offer the same features, performance, build quality, etc.? Generally speaking, no. I think $189 is a bit much as well, but street prices might be up to $30 lower. We'll have to see when it becomes available.Reply

Because a four page "article" is essentially a collection of meaningless graphs that don't have a single origin or any statistically valid testing on them? The only thing this "review" was missing is using the world "loose" for the word lose.Reply

I would love to hear your suggestions on "statistically valid testing". To the best of my knowledge, everyone else is just "testing" cases by installing a system inside them, a procedure that has zero actual validity for a ridiculous number of reasons. Even if you were to acquire the same exact system, a single part from a different OEM would generate different results. Furthermore, a single system's configuration would favor some case designs over others, leading to misleading results. Using an active load (any kind of) to thermally test anything, especially when comparisons between different designs are going to take place, is far from an improper testing procedure; it does not qualify as testing at all.

As for the graphs, we only have a few reviews right now, so yes, you cannot really compare to many other cases yet. That will change in time.Reply

E, although I wouldn't call your testing "meaningless graphs" or [lacking] "statistically valid testing," I *would* suggest that your methods are significantly less USEFUL to the readership than the previous testing method based on real-world hardware.

Few of your readers, I would wager, are interested in the results of simulated tests when those simulated tests don't appear to correlate to any kind of system anyone would--or possibly even COULD--actually build (200W CPU? 30W HDDs? 30W RAM?).

I would suggest that the variability between different OEMs' parts is generally so small as to be irrelevant unless we're talking different GPU or CPU cooler designs, and the latter is easily-enough controlled for by testing with one or two of the most popular coolers on the market. Yes, there will be some variation between even a "popular parts" test rig and the specific rigs that your readers might have. But that variation will be a lot smaller--and more easily comprehended--than that between any real rig and the bizarre imaginary configuration above.

I understand the desire for repeatability and scientific rigor in testing. But at the end of the day, you're not a laboratory, you're a case reviewer for a popular website, and surely I am not the only reader who finds these simulated load tests entirely pointless, and thus find myself needing to turn to other sites' reviews for their real-world testing.Reply

As far as thermal testing goes, you do not have to correlate with the power of the test equipment. It is not even possible to reach the power figures of my testing equipment with any real system but, even if you could, the thermal performance of an active system depends on the design of the system itself. Even the orientation of the CPU cooler would affect the results. Our testing displays how each case performs thermally without any kind of support from the system or other variations; you can see which case performs better than another, regardless of the configuration that will be inserted into it. If anyone tells you that they can even guess the exact thermal performance of a system inserted into any case by simply comparing the thermal results of another system inside the same case, even if it is very similar, he has no idea of what he is talking about. If anyone is making comparisons between cases using a system, which an active load, you are being played, simple as that. A different system would yield entirely different results and comparisons are downright obsolete.

The variability between OEM's can be massive. Even a change of a thermal sensor or even the BIOS can cause a great difference on results, let alone a different cooler and or component. A change of motherboard will render all comparisons useless, as not only the sensors are different but also their locations have changed, as well as the locations of other components. Even the same exact same system with a CPU cooler will provide different results depending on the mounted orientation, favoring certain case designs over others. But, even if I consider that the difference between similar components is small, it would mean that a) I expect the reader to have a system similar to mine and b) that comparisons between similar designs, which offer similar thermal performance, are obsolete, as the "small error" still is an unidentified random error of unknown magnitude. Under such an assumption, all similar cases will perform similarly anyway and testing is redundant to begin with.

As I said before, "real-world" testing does not qualify as testing at all. If you try to compare the results of any such tests to those of your system, even if you system is slightly different, you are only making nothing more a random guess. If you are trying to compare the results of such tests to those you expect to receive from an entirely different system, that does not even qualify as guessing. I have many years of professional experience on such matters and I would not even dare to make an educated guess if more than a single part of a system changes in a single case, let alone compare different systems to each other, especially between different cases.

I would rather give you results that you can actually use to compare the thermal performance of different cases between each other before buying one than random numbers that have absolutely no value and would simply mislead you. I could easily add the thermal results of a typical system if I wanted to, it would hardly take me a couple of hours to do so and that would cease all "bashing" from people who want to see "real-world testing"; however, I will not do so because I know that a) it is just plain wrong and b) I will be misleading the readers.Reply

So you agree that your thermal load has no meaningful relationship to the object it's supposed to be a proxy for (an active system), but that you see this as in any way advantageous is the part that I'm having difficulty comprehending.

I'm going to cut down a much longer reply by simply bringing us to my ultimate point, which is that you appear to be starting by assuming a spherical cow in a vacuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow for the reference, in case it's too obtuse).

A static thermal load, like a spherical cow in a vacuum, virtually eliminates variables and simplifies the problem, which absolutely meets your stated goal of achieving repeatable results. But in so doing, it fails to emulate real-world situations (your other stated goal), because nobody, to my knowledge, actually HAS vacuum-breathing spherical cows (or static thermal loads in need of computer cases to house them).

If your static thermal load is any easier to translate into the performance of an actual active load than one particular active load is to translate into a different active load, I'm clearly failing to understand how that is so.Reply

I fear that you understood little of what I said. I will consider the "spherical cow" mention as a joke, since it only applies to highly simplified theoretical studies, not laboratory testing. As a matter of fact, the "spherical cow" approach is a much better description of what you refer to as "real-world testing". Since you are referring to the results generated by a single system and you are actually trying to make comparisons with it, you are making half a thousand guesses and assumptions in order to make a guess about how a change of a single component would affect the thermal performance of a single case, let alone the comparisons between different cases or between different systems.

What I said is that my thermal load is not directly comparable to that of an active system. It can however be used to compare the thermal performance of different cases and displays the true performance of a case, unaided by external factors. I cannot tell you how a case will perform with every possible configuration that could be installed inside it; however, I can tell you which case has better stock thermal performance regardless of the configuration that will be installed. On the other hand, testing with an active system creates results that again are not comparable to that of any other system and, as it adds a ton of variables, it also is obsolete for comparisons between different cases. If I were to do something like this, I would only be showing you some numbers that cannot be used to compare cases and cannot be used as a reference for any other system, even if it is almost entirely identical to the test system; it does not get any more useless than that.

By what you are saying, you are suggesting to drop a methodology that can generate repeatable results and display the actual performance of the cases, in order to replace it with a "testing" procedure that will produce results impossible to compare them to other systems and useless for the comparison of different cases; in other words, meaningless and misleading.

Let me try another, far too simple argument. I would need much less time and a fraction of the energy required to perform such testing if I were to simply press the power-on button with the system depicted in the review, run some applications and write down the numbers. Actually, it would reduce the time needed to test a single case from 2-3 days to about...30 minutes. I could essentially double my output (and my income, plus the energy cost). So, unless you actually believe that I am mentally deranged, take my word for it; there is no "real-world" testing that could produce any results meaningful to anyone.

As you said so yourself, I strive for scientific vigor and repeatability. If you still believe that "real-world" testing is in any way better than testing done with lab equipment and by someone who at least understands the basics of the scientific method, then by all means, feel free to discard these results as "pointless" and refer to other sites for "meaningful" testing.Reply

Agreed on every point. To those that cringe at the notion of reading the two full answers above, would you agree with the following summary:

- "Real world" testing does not give any real world insight since the variance between individual systems is too great.- Gaining any absolute knowledge about how your system will perform in a certain case is thus impossible. Let it go people.- The best we can hope for are accurate comparisons between cases, but that is not going to happen as long as we cling to the flawed "real world" testing methodology. This is the rational for using a synthetic load method in case reviews from now on.

I think part of the acceptance problem lies in the lack in any comparative data at this point. Once you have a couple of relevant test points as a reference I think people will see the upside to your awesome work. Keep it up!Reply

"I cannot tell you how a case will perform with every possible configuration that could be installed inside it; however, I can tell you which case has better stock thermal performance regardless of the configuration that will be installed. "

I understand why the change in methodology was made, but I think part of the issue that people have with this new format is that it is too technical/scientific. I think most of us come to AT to read articles about various hardware because we are interested consumers and possible buyers, not interested engineers.

While the new format is more scientifically rigorous, you yourself indicate above that the data you end up with is not representative of any system that the reader may install, so what use is it to us? Yes, we can see what the stock cooling with a simulated load may be, but is that any less or more helpful then the previous methodology of a fixed system tested across the cases? It may be more valuable from an engineering standpoint, but it may be less useful from a consumer who is comparing cases.

While I understand the desirability for a single test that can be applied to any case regardless of form factor, a tiered system that represents more buyer expectations may be better. This could be something like a standard mATX system, an ITX system, an ATX system with tower cooler, and an ATX system with CLC for the CPU. While I realize this is not as easy to keep on hand for a reviewer, that is what you are "up against" with the other review sites. When a consumer comes to a case review, and sees the AT review with some simulated thermal load, and a competitor review with a system that is a close approximation of what they have or are planning, which do you suppose they are more likely to take to heart?

You did make the point that there are significant differences between OEM's for similar items, and with different sensor points, etc. However, you provide no actual evidence of this, while stressing your knowledge, education, and that apparently, unlike your readers, you "at least understands the basics of the scientific method", which just make you look arrogant. I think a great article, to support this new testing methodology, would be to show just how much of a difference switching just a motherboard with different/differently placed sensors makes.

Additionally, to help shore up the consumer value of these articles, I think more space/effort needs to be paid to how the case is while building. There are basic statements like "Building a system inside the Graphite 760T is a seamless procedure, aided by the large size of the case. Most of the time required to build a system inside this case will most likely be for the routing of the cables", but it doesn't seem to ring true with any personal experience or flair, something that Dustin did quite well that I would guess readers are missing, myself included. Reply

Wholeheartedly agree with the above, especially the last paragraph. Scientific value and rigor have been added to the reviews but real-world, comparable metrics are arguably absent.

I also don't see how results from one review are going to be compared to another with the style of these graphs. Obviously we don't know exactly what the graphs/charts/data grids will look like in advance but the Thermal Load graph for instance already has 4 different series worth of data. Overlaying another 4 series for just one other case is going to look very messy, never mind what it would look like with 10 others.Reply

I'd suggest that if you look at the final CPU/GPU/etc. temperature at the end of the test sequence, that's an easy figure to compare with other test systems. "System A has 55C on the CPU, system B has 60C on the CPU -- A is better." Hopefully we'll have enough cases to work from in the next week or two so that we can start showing additional (useful) charts.Reply

Ok, I guess you've convinced me that you know what you're talking about, and will try to stay open-minded as more results are compiled. But one thing that bothers me is after all your efforts to create uniform methods, why not use a nice set of the same fans in every case?

Doesn't using stock (supplied) fans introduce a huge variable from case to case, both in thermal and acoustic testing? I would rather know how the case itself performs, as opposed to the possibly cheap fans that are included...Reply

"Corsair provides ample clearance behind the motherboard tray for the routing of cables."

If I had to give just one rule in regard to technical writing, then it would be to avoid subjective analysis. In other words, how do I know that his idea of what's "ample" is the same as mine? An actual measurement would be best, and possibly a comparison of that value to competing cases.

Also, I miss the ability to compare cases to each other. Heat and noise are huge factors to me when considering cases, which is one reason why the lack of a side fan-mount is a no-go for me. However, we only get heat values for the current case in the reviews.Reply

I am not really sure if I should take that as a compliment. I am usually getting bashing because my writing is "too technical". :)

You are right. The clearance however is not even across the entire section and people hardly care about a few mm's difference, for which reasons I believed that a qualitative evaluation would suffice. It is 21.6 mm between the panel and the motherboard tray, which falls down to 15.2 mm at the rising sections near the openings and goes up to 27.9 mm behind the 5.25" bays. It also is practically zero where the 2.5" slots are mounted.

I will consider adding precise measurements in my future reviews.Reply

I probably wouldn't worry too much about reporting varying differences unless said difference causes a problem. I think most users know the offending cable is typically the ATX power cable. The reason why I'm so picky about space is because of another Corsair case: the Obsidian 800D. The 800D was a decent case with a lot of interesting design choices, but a not-so-good one was the lack of clearance in the back. I used a Corsair HX750 with it, and the bulky ATX power cable caused the solid side panel to bow out as there just wasn't enough room to accommodate it. In my 900D, I actually use the same cabling kit that you are.

Although, another issue is usually power cables connecting to hard drives. That's where this cable comes in handy: http://amzn.com/B0086OGN9E . Those plugs can be moved on the wire, which means you can get them exactly where you need them without trying to contort your poor power cables and stuff them in between drives.Reply

Are they better, though? Have you personally handled the 760T? No, you haven't, because it isn't out yet. Looks are almost totally subjective, and being all metal isn't inherently better. I don't think E. will be going back to retest old cases, but I suspect we'll have updated versions of the cases you mention in for testing at some point. Only then can anyone truly say how well they each perform, but if E. thinks the 760T performs better than average, I'm going to guess that he has tested enough cases over the years to have a reasonable idea of what to expect.Reply

I think that question lacks basis. There is plenty of criticism in the article. What the article lacks is cooling and feature comparison graphs/tables. There needs to be an ideal case or a couple of cases in this form factor to compare it to that. There is a case bench on this site and I don't see how this translates into that.

I think the article is good, but case after case there will be something lacking if I have to re-read articles every time a new review is posted for comparison purposes.Reply

We switched case reviewers and testing methodology, so right now we only have two cases we could even put in charts. Give it some time and we'll get additional charts in place showing more than a single case.Reply

Well to be honest 600T sucked. A fan switch that doesn't change fan speed, mediocre performance, No dust filters, No space to mount two radiators, USB 3.0 pass through cables, And lots of flimsy plastic. Reply

First off, this is an ugly case - the white and black highlights clash pretty badly, and the front mesh panel doesn't go very well with the rest of the design.

Secondly, I don't understand why more manufacturers don't follow Silverstone's lead (FT04) and flip the motherboard upside down so that the intake fans can blow directly over it. How hard can that be? It shouldn't add to the design or manufacturing costs, and it dramatically improves CPU cooling. The Corsair Air 540 (which accomplished the same effect using a dual-chamber design) was a step in the right direction. This is just another mediocre traditional ATX case.Reply

I thought they only had a patent on the 90-degree rotated motherboard. Didn't a lot of older ATX cases have the motherboard at the bottom and the PSU at the top - wouldn't there be prior art for that?Reply

WHAT?!?! How the HELL did Silverstone patent the BTX case(let's not mince words here, that's what it is)? I KNOW there's prior art there even if "we mounted the mobo on the left instead of the right" is actually an invention of note in the first place. Who approved that patent?!?!

*deep breath*

I swear... the entire frickin' patent system is broken beyond belief, and patent trolling is apparently standard business practice for EVERYONE nowadays. Seriously, WHO APPROVES THESE THINGS?!?!?!...Sorry. I thought I'd ran out of capslock, but I had one more good yell in me. Reply

Wow! Such harsh words and negativity. First off, aesthetics is a very individual thing. Not everyone will like the look of the case. Secondly, I wish Corsair would take a stab at a case without 5.25 bays. NZXT did it and made a case that was absolutely stunning. Third, I don't mind the choice of plastic for the majority of the non-structural components. It however take away some of the rigidity of the case. I had hoped for a glass side panel honestly.

Personally, I think the case looks fantastic and can't wait for other color schemes. I can see a lot of enthusiasts modding the front panel to remove the 5.25 altogether for a triple radiator or cleaner internals. Maybe adding risers to the top panel cover to achieve a clean look while allowing some airflow. It's not perfect, but it will have a good following I believe.Reply

$189...Corsair is out of their mind. I'd be hard pressed to pay $100 for this garbage. From what I've been seeing on forums lately, Corsair's products have really dropped in quality and they're just milking their existing fanbase and riding the momentum fanboys are making. Outside their AX PSU's, Dominator RAM, and perhaps their dual rad AIO's, everything is run-of-the-mill crap nowadays.Reply

Looks nice and all, but I would never buy this case. Priced like as if it's made of special luxury material or something. I think I paid about $60 for my LianLi Q11, and thought it's a lot of money but spent it because cases usually last a very long time. I would think about it if the price was about $50 after rebate, but at this price, it's just lol.Reply

I really like this case. The design is well thought out. Removable drive cages are great because most people don't need all of the slots. Removing unnecessary drive cages opens up airflow for the system. This is a huge deal since many cases still plop non-removable drive cages directly into the path of your intake fans with no option to remove them.

This case accommodates large motherboards and three two slot GPU configurations easily. There's enough clearance between the top of the motherboard and the top of the case to easily fit a thick rad with push/pull fan configs. There's a lot of room for cable management. The 5.25" drive is going by the way of the dinosaur so 3x5.25 drive bays are more than enough for anyone not looking to create a burn station. I also like the full acrylic window displaying all of the system's components. This is pretty cool.

I haven't seen interior design this good on any models by any manufacturer with the exception of NZXT. Most NZXTs above the $100 mark incorporate a lot of these features plus SSD mounts on the back side of the motherboard tray (but velcro works if the mounts aren't there), and fan hubs with up to 10 fan power connections with a 3-way switch.

I really think this case is a step in the right direction for Corsair. Most of the features I mentioned on the case make building a cool-looking cool-temperature system a dream.Reply

My apologies; I am actually waiting on a proper scale for this specific purpose. I cannot accurately weigh a case with the small precision scales that I have right now and their weight frequently is undisclosed before the NDA date.Reply

I cannot use any other type of chart to display several dozens of data points though and I cannot go with black/white line charts either; these would be great for a scientific paper but extremely out of place in an online editorial. However, I am open to suggestions. Reply

I would think that in a world where the cheaper and better looking 750d exists this case is 110% unnecessary.....they are the functional equivalent this one is just uglier....and more expensive....Reply

It's a great idea to run a constant load for the thermal testing. I wonder why it took this long for someone to do it this way. I would also be interested at 1000W load for triple/Quad GPU & dual processors for cases that big enough for it. Although for most cases, 800-400W range is perfect.

Some comments:

Can you post the test setup pictures for visualization? maybe schematic of the thermal loads location & temperature measurements.

The gravy on top would be total airflow thru the test, although I understand this one would be quite hard to capture since you would need some single inlet/outlet enclosure big enough to contain the case & some means to measure very low airflow around it (I don't think LFE will be able to measure flow rate this low, and other solutions are quite a bit more money, one can dream I guess...). This would allow some us to roughly scale the case performance with more/less fan(s) if we were to buy and build the said case.Reply

In the first screenshot in the article, you can see a rainbow hue in the window panel. My 600T window had the exact same defect, making a large part of my motherboard look quite blurry. Most of the text on the motherboard is impossible to read through the defect. It's like it's blurred into triplicate.

I sent screenshots to Corsair and left messages on one of their "support" forums but they never bothered to even reply. Reply

When I first saw this case, I thought "Damn, this looks beautiful." Large, see-through (to a degree) side panel that fully opens on a hinge? B&W colour scheme? Convenient, easy to clean dust filters? Space for large radiator setups? Other than the drive bays at the front, which I'm not too keen on, I think it's pretty much the next case I'll be using for my next build.

Shame about the price though, there are a lot of cases around that price range it's competing against.Reply